trek32@lemmy.world to Political Memes@lemmy.world · 1 month agoFar left intellectualismlemmy.worldimagemessage-square823fedilinkarrow-up11.44K
arrow-up11.44KimageFar left intellectualismlemmy.worldtrek32@lemmy.world to Political Memes@lemmy.world · 1 month agomessage-square823fedilink
minus-squarecurbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 month agoOK, so claims of randos on the internet. NOT any single elected democrat. Got it.
minus-squareFedizen@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·1 month agoAh so what matters is words not actions? Taking steps to remove 3rd parties from ballots is fine as long as you don’t say it?
minus-squarecurbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·edit-21 month agoWhat matter is context. Intentionally leaving it out is garbage. As is not saying which ballots you’re referring to. In this case, I assume its the presidential election where they are playing the role of spoiler? Yes, it absolutely makes sense to legally challenge those. But “some democrats” is just as garbage and useless a comment as “people are saying”. Edited to add: This is also definitively and explicitly not the same thing as saying ban all third parties. Nonsense. Utter nonsense.
OK, so claims of randos on the internet.
NOT any single elected democrat.
Got it.
Ah so what matters is words not actions? Taking steps to remove 3rd parties from ballots is fine as long as you don’t say it?
What matter is context. Intentionally leaving it out is garbage.
As is not saying which ballots you’re referring to. In this case, I assume its the presidential election where they are playing the role of spoiler?
Yes, it absolutely makes sense to legally challenge those.
But “some democrats” is just as garbage and useless a comment as “people are saying”.
Edited to add: This is also definitively and explicitly not the same thing as saying ban all third parties.
Nonsense. Utter nonsense.